Friday, May 30, 2008

Rampant Growth of the Nanny State

It's not just seatbelts anymore. If your windshield wipers are on you have to have your headlights on. Pretty quick you can't talk on your cellphone when driving. They wanted to dictate what kind of lightbulbs you get to use, tell you to spay all of your pets by law and relegate any breeding to select puppymills.

The slippery slope that began with the much needed No Smoking areas is poised to become no smoking anywhere (cigarettes, that is, pot of course is completely sacred and doesn't apply.

And now this...
Move over, Rover: Proposed California law would prohibit pets from riding on drivers’ laps ...The California State Assembly recently passed a bill, AB 2233, which would prohibit a person from holding a live animal in their arms or on their lap while driving.

The bill is going to the state Senate, and if it passes and makes it to the Governor’s office to be signed into law, the new law would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2009.

A person who breaks the law could face a ticket of $35....

It's almost election day. How about you elect some candidates who understand that PEOPLE can think for themselves, and who pledge to abolish the Nanny State.

They can't and won't do anything about growhouses and illegal pot grows, meth, any number of things. But they (you lovely legislators) sure as shit can bust YOU, the innocent law abiding citizen. And the cops, instead of going after bad guys, are forced to go after YOU.

You should be so relieved now - all these dangerous drivers with Papillions (or bulldogs) on their laps will get what's coming to 'em.

Disgusting. Discuss.


  1. Off topic but in the ballpark;

    Why nothing in the local rags about the federal indictments on the owners (husband and wife) of six "medical marijuana" despensaries in Los Angeles ??

    They were arrested on May 27 (2008). Much of the coverage is due to the fact that a "sick person" obtained his "medical marijuana", got zonked and drove into a Highway patrol car that had stopped a car in Ventura. The one CHP was killed and the other made a parapalegic. An employee was arrested along with the husband and wife owners.

    It's about time.

  2. Got any links. 9:50?

    Also, for the record, no, my dog doesn't sit in my lap when I am driving. He's the size of a German Shepherd and requires his own seat on the few occasions when he gets to go in the car (like to the vet, which you know he enjoys)

  3. To me a link is breakfast sausage or a form of hot dog.

    A retired highway patrolfriend forwarded the article to me.

    Virgill Edward Grant III (41), Psytra Monique Grant (33, of Carson were arrested. Stanley Jerome Cole (an employee), 39 was also named in the indictment.

    CHP officer Pedeferri was crippled and Andreas Parra was the driver of car being stopped by the CHP. Parra was the person killed. This incident occurred on December 19, 2007 just outside the city of Ventura.

    The driver, Jeremy White, is being prosecuted by Ventura County for gross vehicular manslauter while intoxicated.

    It looks like the lovely couple also got hit with money laundering charges and asset forfeiture.

    The initial appearance for the couple will be in Los Angeles Federal Court. The investigation was done by the DEA and IRS.

  4. I wonder what the fine would be if you had a poodle on you lap while using the windshield wipers at full blast with no lights while talking on your cell phone about how good the cigarette your smoking is while your kid coughs in the child seat up front...

    Oh yeah, you got a half-full bottle of whiskey rolling around on the ground up front.

  5. With your non-squiggly lightbulbs, six pack of Pepsi and some {gasp!} non trans-fat free cheetos in a grocery bag from a big box non-local grocery store, you'd be in big trouble buster.

    And that poodle better be spayed or else.

  6. 9:50,
    so you approve of the goverment being your nanny when it comes to medicine and health? if you think that the state should tell the voters that they have no freedom and that prop 215 doesnt apply, you picked the wrong thread. this thread is about NOT wanting a nanny state.

    we need LESS laws, not more, but i dont think that will ever happen. people want to control others, thats the bottom line. control.

  7. 100% agreement with that last paragraph, Theo. We need LESS laws.


    And, what's the point of having laws if you don't enforce them - ala the pot stuff? If you aren't going to enforce the law, get rid of it.

    Selective enforcement also seems to be an issue.

    But how 'bout one new law - if a LEGISLATOR proposes, and/or votes for a law - and then they break it - they should get the highest form of punishment we can dream up, whether it is losing their right to ream - I mean - "serve" the public in any capacity for the rest of their worthless life, loss of their state pension or, well, never mind, but Carol Migden, you're one of those... catch Patty Berg driving in the rain without her headlights on, throw her in the stockade.

  8. Theo

    Your wiring seems to be a bit out of whack !

    As to the medicine/marijuana issue, I don't think marijuana is medicine and nothing you or anyone can say (that hasn't already been said) will convince me otherwise.

    Am I glad the fed's are going after this three in LA ? You're damned right I am. I hope they zing them for back taxes with fines, penalties, and jail. Not to mention take everything of value that they have for forfeiture. I hope they have to spend 10,000 hours of community service helping disabled people, right after they do their 10 years at Lompoc or Leavenworth.

    As to Muffin sitting on Hazel's lap when she drives I don't really care. BUT I do understand the problem. One of my family members was rear ended because a dog was running loose in the car and prevented the driver from stopping in time. The injuries were serious but did not cripple. The painful injuries could have been avoided if Muffin was not in the front seat.

    How about some kind of nanny law that requires Theo to be banned from touching a computer?

  9. 5:12,
    you may not be that far off. a reader on this site claimed that barak obama wants to ban all computers.

    i think that we should jail the person who sold muffin to hazel. it only makes sense since you want to jail the person who sold some herb to a person who crashed. i personally dont mind making consumers responsible for their own choices. thanks to people like you, we live in such a regulated, sue-happy culture that business cant survive.

    in addition, wanting to jail everyone is the same thing as creating a giant nanny state.

  10. Well Theo, if you had a proper nanny maybe you wouldn't still be a bed wetter?

  11. 9:30,
    wow....that was an impressive comeback!!! lol

    is that your standard argument for justifying your lust for more laws and regulations?

  12. Laws should be to protect us from each other, not ourselves. Dogs on laps while driving, car lights not turned on in the rain, talking on cell phones while driving and exposing nonsmokers to cigarette smoke all endanger people who aren't the ones making the stupid choices. If all people used common sense we wouldn't need these "nanny laws," but that isn't the case.

    What if the person who killed Rodoni lost control of her car because of her dog? Would you have a different opinion then?

  13. It's stupid people like you who we need to be protected from Rose.

  14. I'd much rather the CHP spend their time getting drunks off the road than dogs, but what do I know.

  15. I often wonder how they feel about having to bust innocent people like this. Presumably they got into the job to get bad guys, not bust the housewife with a poodle on her lap.

    If we've really reached the point where this is what constitutes criminal behavior, perhaps we should look at disbanding the law enforcement entity.

    Pretty soon we'll be like "Demolition Man."

  16. ......the heat came round and busted me for smilin on a cloudy day.....

  17. A driver with a dog jumping around in the car and on their lap is more impaired than a drunk driver with a .09 alcohol level. Are drunk driving laws unnecessary nanny state bs? Restrain your dogs in the car for their safety as well as your own. In an accident a loose dog can be severely injured as well as injure other passengers regardless what caused the accident. Do you only seatbelt your children because the law requires it?

  18. Good thread, Rose. You really brought out some of the Authoritarians.

    I think you and Theo should probably register to vote as libertarians.

  19. I definitely lean that way Fred, but there are two things the Libertarians have done that - I don't know if let me down or turn me off are the right terms - make me think twice - defense of this country and their stance on f-cking spay/neuter bill.

    If the Libertarian Party can't speak up against cellphone bans, banning incandescent lightbulbs and and neuter - then they don't stand for what i thought they stood for.

    They have a million opportunities every day now to stand up and say NO to the Nanny State and millions of people would agree with them.

    Maybe a leader will emerge to do that.

    The ones I've seen so far have not had that spark... but I am waiting - and you are right, I should come in and join you. :)

    Good to hear from ya, Fred.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.